NBN Discussion

[Austman]

Cost shouldn't be much difference if replacing copper with copper or copper with fibre in an apartment complex.... I don't see how it should cost $5000 per apartment to replace a copper wire.

Sorry $5,000 was a typo - $2,000 is perhaps more like it (I dd edit). But it's still very expensive. You need to somehow run the cables in common areas (most small or medium sized buildings don't have service ducts), You have to break into (most probably) fire rated walls and plaster. You need to repair and repaint all the areas (enormously expensive). There's a very good reason way the NBN has ignored most apartments - it's simply hard to do and very expensive.

Even getting Bigpond/Fotel /Optus cable for us would have been extremely expensive. I can't see how the NBN could be cheaper.

You can't just 'replace' copper cabling in most medium sized apartment buildings. That's incredibly naive. It's all installed like the electricity/plumbing/drainage/gas etc I.e it's done and then all the plaster is put up to cover it all!

 

[drsmithy]

If the NBN can connect fibre to the outside of an apartment building, then the apartments will be well within the cable lengths to deliver good performance over copper.

 

[Austman]

If the NBN can connect fibre to the outside of an apartment building, then the apartments will be well within the cable lengths to deliver good performance over copper.

Or even if NBN was delivered inside the apartment building (MDF) and then used the existing internal copper from there. I sure hope that can be done. But there's no information from NBN Co that this will be the solution or even if it will be allowed. And I can tell you from our Bigpond/Foxtel/Optus experiences, they were all very insistent on this: do it exactly their way or you don't get connected - period.

 

[Bugalugz]

They do have a method for connecting apartments now via copper and still get excellent speed and much better than FTTN will ever provide, not like any city in Australia will recieve FTTN anyway. Where there is HFC cable you will have to go on that even though there is not the capacity or the will to sell it so you won't have anything.

Regionally we will be screwed, how the hell are cabinets running electronics going to go in remote places especially north of the tropic of capricorn? 40 degree+ days for weeks at a time.......should be fun so they will need a cooling system to eat even more power.

The best way to look at the NBN is Labor is building a high speed railway between Sydney-Melbourne and Brisbane and it will be capable of 300km/h and the Libs are also going to build a high speed railway between Sydney-Melbourne and Brisbane and theoretically it will be capable of 300km/h however to save 2 billion dollars you will travel from Melbourne to Goulburn on the high speed train and from there you will get put on 1 inch guage train capable of a whopping 5km/h to Central Station.

On Labors plan you would be high speed non stop to Central from Flinders Street.

Something highly critical. VDSL or FTTN was New Zealands big plan to have their broadband of the future and guess what, it didn't work. Too many nodes were required, too much power and the speeds weren't there. The worse thing they found was the copper was in a cough condition and it's all quite a bit younger than any of Australias Copper. So that says it all really if the Libs get in we will get a Fraudband and no NBN even though they will call it that we will not get anything better than we already have. So NZ is now installing Fibre to the Home accross the whole country and spending the money as the economic growth and innovation that can come out of having a FTTP network is beyond anything they can cost and expect.

Also FTTN has never been trialled in Australia apparently Tesltra looked at it in the late 90's early 00's but it wasn't viable then as the copper couldn't maintain speeds as it was "5 minutes to midnight" almost 15 years ago so you have to ask yourself what kind of condition is it in now?

 

[markis10]

Also FTTN has never been trialled in Australia apparently Tesltra looked at it in the late 90's early 00's but it wasn't viable then as the copper couldn't maintain speeds as it was "5 minutes to midnight" almost 15 years ago so you have to ask yourself what kind of condition is it in now?

FTTN has been trialled and in fact deployed in Australia for the last 13 years through Transact in the ACT, from memory 2/3 rds of Canberra have access via VDSL tails, which are being upgraded to VDSL2:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/296828,transact-secures-canberra-upgrade-path.aspx

 

[wmetz]

Is there any point for this discussion as after 7th Sept suddenly the funding for it will disappear. and we get to keep the most expensive providers of internet in the world.I like that fact that in the 21th century, I still wouldn't be able to get ADSL 2 even thought 5km from the city center. It good living in the 1800's. Where Graham Bell and that new fancily electronic thingie.

 

[get me outta here]

FTTN has been trialled and in fact deployed in Australia for the last 13 years through Transact in the ACT, from memory 2/3 rds of Canberra have access via VDSL tails, which are being upgraded to VDSL2:

TransACT secures Canberra upgrade path - Telco/ISP - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

FTTN is a familiar 'name' living in the ACT, but is it considered good - as for me it's just what I have on a daily basisi.

 

[serfty]

I was looking into Whirlpool trying to research FTTN/FTTHbut gave up!

Woe betide anyone who suggests the former is a reasonable option. :shock:

 

[markis10]

I was looking into Whirlpool trying to research FTTN/FTTHbut gave up!

Woe betide anyone who suggests the former is a reasonable option. :shock:

People will always want more for nothing, which is the up front cost on offer of FTTH, problem is its not the real cost, and we all pay.

 

[ferni]

FTTN has been trialled and in fact deployed in Australia for the last 13 years through Transact in the ACT, from memory 2/3 rds of Canberra have access via VDSL tails, which are being upgraded to VDSL2:

TransACT secures Canberra upgrade path - Telco/ISP - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

That's right. 60mbit down (no mention of upload). And that's it.... vs FTTH of 1Gbit down/400Mbit up.

People will always want more for nothing, which is the up front cost on offer of FTTH, problem is its not the real cost, and we all pay.

You're right, it's human nature, more for nothing. But the alternative (Coalitions FTTN plan) is also going to cost close to a FTTH solution... and the FTTN isn't a 'stepping stone' to FTTH as with FTTN you end up with all these useless Nodes planted all over australia and then you have to replace the 300meter copper tail with fibre anyway...

The end game is fibre to the home eventually. The question is how and when... Cost a FTTN plan converted to a FTTH plan later on, vs doing FTTH straight away and it's not hard to see which one will be cheaper in the long run. Not to mention the benefit we will get out of the FTTH in the meantime.

 

[markis10]

The end game is fibre to the home eventually. The question is how and when... Cost a FTTN plan converted to a FTTH plan later on, vs doing FTTH straight away and it's not hard to see which one will be cheaper in the long run. Not to mention the benefit we will get out of the FTTH in the meantime.

I dont think it is, to quote the academic I reference in an earlier post:

''There is nothing coming through the pipeline that I am aware of that is saying we really need everyone to have more bandwidth in their home than is offered by solutions such as fibre-to-the-node,'' Edwards says.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/playground/nbn-discussion-37098-27.html

Its ok to confuse needs and wants but not when the difference in fitting the bill for said wants is so high.

FTTH does not fix our current issues - backhaul and mobility coverage, unless everyone is happy to have a femtocell in their kitchen.

 

[ferni]

I dont think it is, to quote the academic I reference in an earlier post:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/playground/nbn-discussion-37098-27.html

Its ok to confuse needs and wants but not when the difference in fitting the bill for said wants is so high.

FTTH does not fix our current issues - backhaul and mobility coverage, unless everyone is happy to have a femtocell in their kitchen.

We don't *need* public transport, But it sure helps people get around easier, enabling our cities to flourish...

Do you believe that the bandwidth delivered by FTTN will be all we will ever need? Or even all we will need in the next 50 years?

What backhaul issues are you talking about exactly?

Not sure what mobility coverage has to do with NBN. (By coverage i'm assuming you mean signal, not bandwidth). Keep in mind that the more people you get onto a decent home connection, using wifi inside their house, the less congestion there is on our mobile networks for people who aren't at home.

 

[markis10]

Not sure what mobility coverage has to do with NBN. (By coverage i'm assuming you mean signal, not bandwidth). Keep in mind that the more people you get onto a decent home connection, using wifi inside their house, the less congestion there is on our mobile networks for people who aren't at home.

I think your missing the point, the NBN is great for a connectivity model thats 15 years old, if you look at what people do with their connectivity these days, there is a massive move to mobile not fixed, something the NBN does not really address in the ROI context.

As for public transport, if "we" did not need it, why does it exist as a black hole is many a governments budget, poor analogy, I think you will find the experts saying we do need it, especially from a climate change point of view, but thats another thread

 

[ferni]

I think your missing the point, the NBN is great for a connectivity model thats 15 years old, if you look at what people do with their connectivity these days, there is a massive move to mobile not fixed, something the NBN does not really address in the ROI context.

As for public transport, if "we" did not need it, why does it exist as a black hole is many a governments budget, poor analogy, I think you will find the experts saying we do need it, especially from a climate change point of view, but thats another thread

Mobile is something that can and will compliment fixed line. Mobile is Radio. Radio has limited shared bandwidth. Radio technology is improving all the time, but only just keeping up with demand. We need to leap frog demand to provide the platform for innovation.


BTW - You didn't answer my question: "Do you believe that the bandwidth delivered by FTTN will be all we will ever need? Or even all we will need in the next 50 years?"


Define 'need'.. Public transport is a nice to have, makes life easier, reduces carbon footprint etc... The same can be said for NBN

 

[markis10]

You didn't answer my question: "Do you believe that the bandwidth delivered by FTTN will be all we will ever need? Or even all we will need in the next 50 years?"

I cannot answer the question, learnt my lesson back in 89 when I told a customer his 10mb hard disk drive would be all the storage they ever need , the industry is very good at underestimating or overestimating change, just look at IBMs prediction of the number of PCs it would sell.

However the need for speed must hit a wall, Moores Law has held true as far as computer processor speed since the first processors where invented by Noyce and co, but our need for said speed has tapered off when it comes to computers, the latest Mac Airs are a case in point, selling point was battery life, how was it achieved, CPU speed dropped.

 

[NM]

Why am I left considering these quotes from the past?

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." — Bill Gates, 1981.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." — Ken Olson, president/founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18 000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers of the future may have only 1 000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1½ tons." — Popular Mechanics, March 1949.
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." — The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

How much bandwidth do I need? How much bandwidth will I need in the future???

 

[drsmithy]

I think your missing the point, the NBN is great for a connectivity model thats 15 years old, if you look at what people do with their connectivity these days, there is a massive move to mobile not fixed, something the NBN does not really address in the ROI context.

Everyone I know who has mobile connectivity also has a fixed line that they run back to, at home, at work, or both.

They do this because mobile connectivity is relatively slow, unreliable, expensive, and subject to punishing quotas.

A side effect of massively capable infrastructure, will be an increase in freely accessible wifi hotspots attached to those fat, low-cost fixed lines.

I cannot answer the question, learnt my lesson back in 89 when I told a customer his 10mb hard disk drive would be all the storage they ever need , the industry is very good at underestimating or overestimating change, just look at IBMs prediction of the number of PCs it would sell.

However the need for speed must hit a wall, Moores Law has held true as far as computer processor speed since the first processors where invented by Noyce and co, but our need for said speed has tapered off when it comes to computers, the latest Mac Airs are a case in point, selling point was battery life, how was it achieved, CPU speed dropped.

Clock speed has dropped.

Performance has continued to improve. A 2013 CPU at the same clock speed delivers vastly greater performance than a 2008 CPU. Or, similarly, can deliver the same performance at a lower clock speed.

There is no guarantee the need for speed will hit a wall. PCs have hit points of "good enough" performance in the past, that lasted years, only to fall into inadequacy again as major software updates have required greater capabilities.

 

[ferni]

I cannot answer the question, learnt my lesson back in 89 when I told a customer his 10mb hard disk drive would be all the storage they ever need , the industry is very good at underestimating or overestimating change, just look at IBMs prediction of the number of PCs it would sell.

However the need for speed must hit a wall, Moores Law has held true as far as computer processor speed since the first processors where invented by Noyce and co, but our need for said speed has tapered off when it comes to computers, the latest Mac Airs are a case in point, selling point was battery life, how was it achieved, CPU speed dropped.

haha yes we've all made that mistake of thinking 'that will be more than enough'

You make a good point about the need for speed to hit a wall... and you make a good example with current CPU where the Mhz/Ghz has hit a wall and they are now focusing on number of cores(and increasing performance in other ways) and reducing power etc... as you point out we don't really talk about/quote the speed of CPUs now right? Why? Because they mostly fast enough for todays applications... but we still talk about network bandwidth... why? Because we haven't hit that wall yet. The end goal is to stop talking about how fast our internet connection is, and an internet connection is just an internet connection, like an electricity connection is just an electricity connection, or water is a water connection...

 

[markis10]

Clock speed has dropped.

Performance has continued to improve. A 2013 CPU at the same clock speed delivers vastly greater performance than a 2008 CPU.

In the context of the latest MacBook Air versus previous model that is not the case, its a performance drop, I am not comparing a 2013 model to the first model at all. I am well across processor performance having been an Intel employee.

 

[Hvr]

Surely wireless and fixed line technologies are complementary? Or in the case of wireless, symbiotic? No idea how far a wireless signal is effective but it would not survive from say the USA. By having a fast infrastructure to bring the content to a nearby wireless tower then the signal becomes faster.

As drsmithy has so presciently noted

A side effect of massively capable infrastructure, will be an increase in freely accessible wifi hotspots attached to those fat, low-cost fixed lines.

.

So it could be argued that wireless expansion might even be constrained if there isn't the fixed line network to support it.